Re: [asa] More WLC on Evolution, ID, and Genesis

As typical in a debate with any philosopher, it is hard to try to pin WLC down here on exactly where he is coming from and why. Overall I am greatly encouraged by all his comments below except:

* flirting with ID as a scientific theory even though he affirms that it doesn't need to be
&
* a theistic view contributing to our understanding of science

On the latter, I agree with Ted that this is overreaching. If anything I think the opposite is true, that the science can stand on its own and if anything it leads people to theism instead of the other way around.

Thanks

John

--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> Subject: [asa] More WLC on Evolution, ID, and Genesis
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 1:36 AM
> Given the conversation stirred up by his last post, I
> thought ASA list
> members would be interested to know William Lane Craig has
> a followup at
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a
>
> Some particularly interesting parts.
>
> "But suppose you're right, and science requires
> methodological naturalism.
> What follows? Merely that the design hypothesis is not a
> scientific
> hypothesis, given your definition of science. As a
> philosopher, that
> conclusion bothers me not a whit. In fact, I remain quite
> open-minded about
> the claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific
> hypothesis. Richard
> Dawkins thinks it is (one of the many claims on which he
> agrees with
> Intelligent Design theorists), but I'm not so sure.
> I'm quite content to
> regard it as a metaphysical claim, a claim that may well be
> true, even if it
> does not fit within the methodological limits of
> science."
>
> So, here's WLC flatly stating his uncertainty about ID,
> particularly ID with
> regards to being scientific. But I think what's very
> interesting is his take
> on evolution and Genesis.
>
> "As for Genesis, I'm again uncertain whether
> there's any science there or
> not. Certainly its theological purpose is not primarily
> scientific. But
> Wolfhart Pannenberg claims, appealing to Old Testament
> scholar Gerhard von
> Rad, that the narrative is intended to be a scientific
> account of the
> world's origin. You're quite mistaken to think it
> purely mythological.
> Indeed, the account is positively de-mythologizing in its
> tone. It strips
> away any of the dragons and primordial gods of the creation
> myths of
> Israel's pagan neighbors. The sun and the moon are not
> astral deities;
> they're just lights in the sky which God has made. The
> animals and
> vegetation that populate the Earth are just creatures made
> by God. The whole
> chapter has a de-mythologizing intent with regard to the
> created world."
>
> Personally, what WLC has pointed out here is something that
> has always
> struck me about Genesis - particularly the
> 'de-mythologizing' aspect. It's
> tremendously down to earth and non-'fantastic' in a
> sense, and that serves
> to make it stand out.
>
> "Once you divest yourself of the idea that the account
> means to narrate six
> consecutive, 24 hour days—and there are good reasons in
> the text for
> thinking that its author did not so intend it—, then
> it's striking that the
> narrative says absolutely nothing about *how* God made the
> plants and
> animals. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not claiming
> that Genesis 1 teaches
> evolution—that would be anachronistic—but merely that
> there is no
> inconsistency between Genesis 1 and an evolutionary theory.
> Augustine
> understood this point already 1500 years before
> Darwin."
>
> Looks like WLC isn't shy about arguing compatibility
> between evolution and
> Genesis. I thought this was clear previously as well, but
> it's nice to see
> it stated clearly.
>
> Still, the most concise and striking portion (in my view)
> comes right here:
>
> "The Bible doesn't intend to be a science
> textbook, so it would be silly to
> look to it for scientific discoveries. But modern science
> was birthed by a
> biblical worldview which saw the world neither as divine
> nor as inhabited by
> spirits but as a rational place created by God and
> therefore amenable to
> scientific exploration. And a theistic view of the world
> can most certainly
> contribute to our understanding of scientific truth."
>
> I think the power of this observation is tremendous, and
> it's the sort of
> thing I'd like to see built up in the future.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 25 10:25:52 2008